High Courts(1991) 09 AHC CK 0046

Surendra Singh Yadav and Ors. vs Kripal Singh Yadav

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 4 September 1991

HON’BLE JUDGES
Giridhar Malaviya, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 15747 of 1985 connected with Cr. Miscellaneous A. No. 13813 of 1986

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 342 words

G. Malayiva, J.—As both these applications involve the identical facts and are seeking the identical relief, they are being disposed of by a common order.

2.

By the present petitions the applicants want the proceedings of criminal case No. 1177 of 1983 Kripal Singh v. Ram Singh Yadav & Ors., pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (Ami Dacoity Affected Area) Agra to be quashed. In application No. 15747 of 1985, relief for discharge of the accused has also been made.

3.

It appears that on the basis of a complaint filed by Kripal Singh Yadav in the Court of the Special Judge (Anti Dacoity Affected Area) Agra. The Special Judge after recording the statement of the complainant, by its order dated 17.8.84, summoned the opposite parties, accused of the said complaint. According to the learned Counsel for the applicants the summoning order by the Special Judge is bad and the complaint can not proceed against them. Various submissions have been made by the learned Counsel for the applicants in support of his contentions.

4.

Having heard learned Counsel for the applicants as also learned Counsel for the 9pposite parties. I think that these applications should be disposed of by making clear this aspect of the matter, that all the objection that are being raised by the applicants in this application can always be raised by them in the proceedings pending against them in the Court below at the stage of framing of the charge. Consequently, it does not appear desirable for this Court to go into merits and demerits of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicants.

5.

Accordingly, these applications stand disposed of finally with the observation that if the applicants can successfully canvass before the Court below that they are entitled to be discharged at the stage of framing of the charge itself, then on hearing respective Counsel for the parties the Court below shall consider these submissions in accordance with law. The stay orders passed in these cases mentioned above stand automatically vacated. Order accordingly.